Once decided the matter against the appellant, the tribunal as re-heard the case on being remanded back by the Honorable Supreme Court.

While remanding back the matter to the tribunal, honorable Supreme Court has said:

"The determination of this question is crucial for deciding the eligibility of the assessee-company to get the benefit of the notification in question for the aforesaid three unregistered trade marks. In the absence of such decision on the point agitated by the assessee-company, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and remit the case back to the Tribunal in so far as the unregistered products, namely, Amigen, Sorgen and Sigum are concerned, for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Order accordingly. All contentions are left open in respect of the aforesaid three unregistered products."

Now, after hearing the case, after being so remanded, honorable tribunal has decided in favor of appellant.

Brief Facts of the Case:

- The appellant and one other company were using the same trade name, "Amigen, Sorgen and Sigum"

- The other company was owner of these trade names.

-  That other company has abandoned the same and they have not objected to use of the trade marks by the appellants.

Decision:

After considering the facts and circumstances, honorable tribunal has held that:

"We hold that the impugned order, denying the benefit of SSI exemption to the appellant on these three products, is liable to be set aside and we do so. The impugned order to the extent on denying the benefit of SSI exemption to these three trade names is set aside and the appeal of the appellant to that extent is allowed". 

(For full text of judgment - visit 2007 -TMI - 1914 - CESTAT, MUMBAI)

 

 

SSI exemption eligibility for unregistered trade names affirmed after finding abandonment and no objection by prior owner. The tribunal, on remand to decide whether Amigen, Sorgen and Sigum are trade names qualifying for SSI exemption, found that the prior owner had abandoned the names and had not objected to the appellant's use, and on that basis held the denial of exemption with respect to those unregistered trade names unsustainable.